The
new
e2f en t
the
new
justice
PAGE 4
For the past two months there has been a
sizable amount of skepticism concerning what
the final response of the Board of Regents
would be to Stephen Rozman.
It appeared at the December meeting of
the Regents that they were interested in
finding out the facts of the professor's
involvement in last May's Indochina war
protests, which the Spelts Committee had
labeled inappropriate.
The impression given by the Regents was
one of concern for justice. So at that time, a
faculty committee was instructed to
determine those facts. The committee was
composed of the most respected scholars in
this community. Their credentials-impeccable.
The members of the Holtzclaw committee,
after instructed by the Regents to find out
the facts, set about to do exactly that. The
committee conducted extensive, as well as
costly hearings. It has been estimated that this
university spent at least $5,000 assembling
the facts. Was it really worth it to spend this
money if there was no intention on respecting
the findings of that report? This is only one
of the secondary questions that students and
faculty might want to ask.
Before firing Rozman, Regent Elliot
borrowed a description from the Scranton
Commission Report. He said, "The proper
functions of the university are teaching anJ
learning, research and scholarship. A moment
later, Elliot moved to fire Rozman. Elliot's
support with the Regents, in his motion to
have Rozman fired, was unanimous.
However, it seems that the university is
still divided as to whose judgment to accept,
the Regents or the Faculty. There is no
question but that the Regents have carte
blanche authority to do whatever they want.
Nor is there much of a question as to what
extreme they will go to prove it.
The Fact-Finding Committee condluded
that Professor Rozman was not guilty of
inappropritate behavior. Then presumably he
is innocent. Extending the Regents' logic, if
he is innocent then he should be fired for not
being guilty.
But if such Yossarian-like rationale is to be
accepted, then there are a number of
implications which also must be understood.
To begin with, members of this
community must now accept the Regents'
edict which implies we do not enjoy privileges
quaranteed in the Bill of Rights. More
specifically, students and faculty are told that
they have the right to protest. They are not
told that any protest can be construed as
disruptive and therefore unacceptable by the
Regents. But with the results of the Rozman
case, it seems that we must accept this
abridgement of our rights as university policy.
Any one of us could be Stephen Rozman.
And many of us are. Stephen Rozman
protested the U. S. invasion of Cambodia. So
did many other faculty members and
students. The Holtzclaw committee reported
that there was no reason to single out one
professor and blame him for everything that
went wrong on this campus last spring.
But what else can we conclude they did?
In their resolution to fire Rozman, the
Regents said they wanted to make it known
that they would not tolerate disruption. They
said they were very concerned "about making
it understood that disorder had no place in
the university. Well, the Regents showed us.
They definitely do want law and order.
However, the price they will pay for that
"commodity" should scare the Hell out of
everybody connected with this university.
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8. .1971